They would have worked with Wayland to fix the problem there, instead of just making their own. granted that would require willing cooperation, which isn't in abundance in the linux camps where they think the only way to get something done the right way is to fork and do it yourself.

I guess they can't read the "together we stand strong" sign because of the forest...

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MirSpec << Go here, scroll down to the "Why not Wayland/Weston?" section. One reason (according to that link) is that the Wayland protocol has similar issues as X w.r.t to input handling since input handling in Wayland and X is done basically the same way.

There's a difference between fragmenting for no reason (like in the case of the 100 million different desktop environments) and fragmenting for for valid reasons which it seems are in play with this.

Interesting. X11 is clearly very dated and if they think this will improve Ubuntu I'm all for it. Anything that can help with graphical performance I'm sure will also give Ubuntu an edge as it looks as if some parts of the industry are pushing for gaming on Linux to be taken seriously. I hope they do this for Kubuntu as well though as I don't really like Gnome.

They would have worked with Wayland to fix the problem there, instead of just making their own. granted that would require willing cooperation, which isn't in abundance in the linux camps where they think the only way to get something done the right way is to fork and do it yourself.

I guess they can't read the "together we stand strong" sign because of the forest...

While we're bashing Mir (because fragmentation) why don't we also bash Wayland for the same reason. X is clearly not dieing off any time soon, so if Wayland is to gain any real traction closed source driver devs are going to have to support 2 display servers. Plus, without fancy fiddling X apps can't run on Wayland and vice-versa. Doesn't seem to me to be any different than Mir, so why aren't people bashing it as well?

While we're bashing Mir (because fragmentation) why don't we also bash Wayland for the same reason. X is clearly not dieing off any time soon, so if Wayland is to gain any real traction closed source driver devs are going to have to support 2 display servers. Plus, without fancy fiddling X apps can't run on Wayland and vice-versa. Doesn't seem to me to be any different than Mir, so why aren't people bashing it as well?

X apps can run seemlessly on wayland with xwayland. And most of wayland's developers are also xorg developers.

For some reason I'm not that surprised to see Ubuntu ignore other open source projects and recreate something other people are already working on.

While we're bashing Mir (because fragmentation) why don't we also bash Wayland for the same reason. X is clearly not dieing off any time soon, so if Wayland is to gain any real traction closed source driver devs are going to have to support 2 display servers. Plus, without fancy fiddling X apps can't run on Wayland and vice-versa. Doesn't seem to me to be any different than Mir, so why aren't people bashing it as well?

Wayland uses plain OpenGL via established APIs, there's nothing extra drivers have to support, the main problem is getting apps to use it (Which isn't that hard since they've been transitioning to a client drawn model for ages.)

While we're bashing Mir (because fragmentation) why don't we also bash Wayland for the same reason. X is clearly not dieing off any time soon, so if Wayland is to gain any real traction closed source driver devs are going to have to support 2 display servers. Plus, without fancy fiddling X apps can't run on Wayland and vice-versa. Doesn't seem to me to be any different than Mir, so why aren't people bashing it as well?

Like ViperAFK noted, most of the key Xorg developers are also behind Wayland. If it becomes stable enough, Wayland may very well become X12. If you look at the history of X you will see that it iterated quickly until X11, at which point major feature development more-or-less stopped because the system was deemed stable. Wayland is an effort to revive that development by taking advantage of features available in modern graphics hardware. For that reason it shuns the classic X architecture (which has matured into X11).

As for your point about running X11 apps in Wayland, that can be done natively. In fact, the Wayland website has an article linked to from the home page briefly describing the Wayland architecture as it relates to X11. Check it out here.

Also, I don't think that either Wayland or Mir are particularly worried about supporting proprietary graphics drivers. Most open-source projects (or more properly, most open-source advocates) take the position that proprietary drivers are a tolerable evil. They won't do anything to intentionally break proprietary drivers (most of the time), but they also don't consider those drivers suitable release blockers. This is the right position IMHO.

So from reading, Mir wants to use OpenGL via EGL as well (just like Wayland), and they're going to adapt the main 2 toolkits (GTK and Qt) to support rendering to Mir natively (Same is happening/already happened with Wayland, like I said they've been moving away from server rendering for a while, so there's barely any difference between handing X11 a bitmap buffer or Wayland/Mir one), so to the end user they won't really see any difference, and neither will most app developers.

But of course it does add duplication, and only difference between Mir and Wayland seems to boil down to input handling, which seems a pretty silly reason to create a whole new project over (They could have just changed Wayland to handle input the way they wanted)

Not really interested in this MIR, seen other ubuntu projects and they've never created anything I've foudn worthwhile.
MIR does seem like a throw-the-dummy-out-the-trolly reply to wayland which is a shame.

Anyway, X11 might be dated, but I can stream a single window over the net from my server! Try doing something like that using windows .

Not really interested in this MIR, seen other ubuntu projects and they've never created anything I've foudn worthwhile.MIR does seem like a throw-the-dummy-out-the-trolly reply to wayland which is a shame.

Anyway, X11 might be dated, but I can stream a single window over the net from my server! Try doing something like that using windows .

That is apparently why we switched from a great working TS syste at work to Citrix' with its horrible jpeg artifacts and non existing shared computer support without using the web client... Office management monkeys...

i like that linux gives the user the choice and what the bashers and haters calling fragmentation i call variety and change. the fact that so many similar yet different solutions can coexist together means just that none of it has yet proven to be the very best. of coruse some would love to have a dictatorship company like microsoft forcing the users to use this and that, but when it comes to GUI for example, linux is really open. i am soooo happy that i still can use lets say gnome 2 and dont HAVE TO accept unity or gnome 3 and run arround the world lying myself how good it is (hint: metro anyone?)

so you dont like x11 or mir in that example: then use another one! no one is forcing you. its freedom and democracy.

and if you dont like anything at all: build your own linux. now try that with ballmers-loser-os

on a sidenote:im happy that our proven linux hater hawkman is already in full bashing mode against linux in general. this will be a crucial test if the moderatores react the same way - and hopefully they do - as in the windows thread.

Except I don't hate linux, and I use it, I just don't have a blind love affair with it. and unlike others, I don't troll with "Ballmers loser OS". So you're proven is proven patently false.

and choice is all well and good, but there's a point when to much choice is bad, or rather it's not the choice itself. it's when you developer can't work together and create 2-3 good products and instead create 10+ sub par products. instead of working together.

That is the point, had linux worked together, and actually made a common standard which they still haven't been able to do, and created a couple of well working base systems. THEN linux might have been a valid alternative for users, companies and enterprise. as it is. Linux will NEVER be a desktop OS replacement, they are stuck at the ~1%

Also how long can you actually use Gnome2, since last I checked it's not really compatible with the new desktop compositors. and you will need Mate or some of the other forks.

of coruse some would love to have a dictatorship company like microsoft forcing the users to use this and that, but when it comes to GUI for example, linux is really open. i am soooo happy that i still can use lets say gnome 2 and dont HAVE TO accept unity or gnome 3 and run arround the world lying myself how good it is (hint: metro anyone?)

Just to point out, you've had the ability to switch to a different shell in Windows since forever, you don't have to use Explorer, there are alternatives out there.. granted most aren't very good, but that's not Microsoft's fault as they didn't write them. Hardly a dictatorship... just an out-of-the-box default. Got one Win8 system running with the Windows 7 shell, and another running KDE. Just saying.

On topic, just out of curiosity (lost interest in Unity a while ago, more of a KDE fan), with their switch to QT, are they still going to be using Nautilus, etc? The GTK based stuff that is. Personally not a big fan of mix-and-matching GTK and QT, just a hassle to get them all looking consistent, extra resource usage, etc. Wondering how that's going to play out.